Posted on 03/25/2005 1:49:37 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
I saw this on an earlier post. Haven't checked the authenticity. You can't get a divorce from a person in a vegetative state in the state of Florida. You are liable for the financial support until they die (or are murdered by the state for you, just kidding.) If the law could be changed where the parents would be liable, if they choose, for the medical expenses, maybe that would help.
Where do you get the idea that she hasnt responded to any therapy? All of the records have been sealed and all of the information I've seen indicate the only "therapy" her adulterer husband was interested in giving was making sure her make up was put on everyday and she has electrodes implanted in her brain. Not one nurse that I've heard interviewed has said she was unresponsive- to therapy or anything else.
Even if your thesis were true, which I stronly doubt, you are basically saying that someone who is mentally impaired has no value. Period. That her family loves her, is willing to care for her, that she is living and breathing, responds to stimuli, isnt good enough for your. Perhaps life only has value if you can discuss Neitcsche?
Your attitude is emblematic of our sick culture. Now, of course, if she was a snail darter then ALL the machinery of "death" would have to halt.
Check the authenticity before you repeat that fact. Marriages are dissolved all the time when one party is unavailable or unable to respond. For example, abandonment: the perfect legal grounds to dissolve this marriage, adultery (again, happens all the time) spouse is living with another "companion" and is "unavailable" to answer the pleadings, spouse goes missing- marriage dissolved.
There is no legal reson Murderer Schiavo could not divorce Terri. None. This is simply his choice. Dont turn it into a legal fact.
I live in fantasyland? “By law”, you've just described his wife as chattel and attempted to make a case that he can do what he will and who the hell am I to intervene? I'll tell you who I am: someone who knows the law and knows “the law” would not let me do that to one of my horses. People go to jail for starving to death those who are under their care. Got that? “Death by starvation” isnt a “choice”.
The idiocy of your argument is that her quality of life is insufficient for her to deserve basic human sustainence. I'd rather live in "fantasyland" than in sicko-ville. In your world a bigamist gets to starve his "wife" to death, after milking her condition for $1 million dollars for her care, then refuses to divorce her and turn her over to her parents who are willing to care for her even though he is SO much in love with her that he has a new wife! In my world , they call that bigamy, abandonment and it is grounds for divorce. Do you honestly think that sicko has any claim over Terri’s life or death decisions? Maybe in sicko-ville. Sure he does. In "fantasyland" we call that a conflict of interest, in fantasy land we call his claims of Terri's "death wish", revealed 5 years after his malpractice suit, an absolute lie: nothing more than unproven hearsay. This “evidence” sustained by the Florida courts would fail to meet the threshold for "clear and convincing" evidence in ANY court of law. Go read some case law. In "fantasyland" Michael Schiavo has no legal claim, in fact he should be tried and convicted on a number of legal theories. Care for me to list them? In stupid, I mean sicko-ville, Michael's position makes PERFECT sense.
Liberals are often accused of self loathing. Maybe that's the reason they are so quick to want to see an "imbecile" like Terri put to death.
I'm so very glad you have checked on the authenticity before reputing my opinion. If you don't mind would you please post the legal opinion/judgement or law here for us all to read?? That would certainly would help me sleep and maybe Terri.
You're the one that failed to present any authenticity before citing Florida statute as fact. All I have to do is look at the 13th amendment to tell you your position is wrong, I dont have to fire up Westlaw. Now why dont you present the statute that says that you cant dissolve a marraige if your spouse slips into a coma. It flies in the face of all legal precepts including constitution law.
So present your statutory premise. Don't pass off conjecture as fact and then make me or anyone else go navigate the quagmire of Florida's statutory scheme. I'm here to tell you a statute like that wouldnt hold up in any state, not even nutsville.
Diagnosed terminal, yes. Six months or less to live? That is a Medicaid directive. Who said she'd die in six months or less?
the doctor who put her in hospice several years ago.
We need his name. On what did he base his diagnosis?
Medicare instead of Medicaid, I think is what she would have been on.
I'd bet the guidelines are very similar if they both address Hospice payment.
I guess you're not going to.......hmmmmm
Again with the brilliant detective work. Of course I'm not going to waste my time searching for a statute that doesnt exist. You made the claim. A claim that would have rendered all legal and moral points moot, so prove it.
You cant and I'll tell you why: These legislators have to live with the consequences of their legislation. You think they are going to saddle themselves with comatose spouses and not be able to cut them loose? Forget it. Never mind the constitutional issues that I already raised, there is no such statute. If there is, produce it. It defies common sense but you're the one who made the claim, so please, again, find the law.
Why is this so important? The legal issue you raised would stop ALL legal proceedings dead in their tracks. There would be no issues. It struck me as classic liberal BS designed to shut down the debate with a legal fiction. That is why you should not pass it on. If you are going to pass it on, verify its authenticity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.